Posted on 02/01/2003 8:31:30 AM PST by freepatriot32
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 31 — A federal jury today found the author of marijuana books and advice columns, Ed Rosenthal, guilty of marijuana cultivation and conspiracy. Under mandatory sentencing laws, Mr. Rosenthal faces a minimum of five years in prison.
Mr. Rosenthal, 58, who admitted to growing the plants for distribution under California's medicinal marijuana law, known as Proposition 215, called the verdict a "terrible decision" and vowed to fight it. His lawyers said they would prepare motions for a new trial immediately.
"What the federal government is trying to do is destroy Prop 215 and eliminate medical marijuana from California," Mr. Rosenthal said. Proposition 215 "will outlive the Bush administration, it will outlive Ashcroft and it will outlive all of these cruel people who want to stop people from getting their medicine."
The law, passed by voters as an initiative in 1996, permits the cultivation of marijuana as medicine for seriously ill people. Mr. Rosenthal was growing starter plants in a warehouse in Oakland, in his capacity as an "officer of the city" under Oakland's medical marijuana ordinance. The plants were distributed to organizations and clubs that serve the seriously ill. Besides California, eight other states allow the sick and dying to smoke or grow marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.
But the judge in the Rosenthal case, Charles R. Breyer of United States District Court, did not allow Mr. Rosenthal to raise the California law as a defense since Mr. Rosenthal was indicted under federal law. Federal law does not permit marijuana cultivation for medicinal purposes.
As a result, Mr. Rosenthal did not take the stand in his own defense and his lawyers said they were unable to explain to the jury his motive for growing the plants. "Ed, for doing the right thing, is paying a terrible price," Robert V. Eye, one of Mr. Rosenthal's lawyers, who fought back tears during a news conference after the verdict. "Social change is never easy."
The jury foreman, Charles Sackett, 51, a landscape contractor in Sebastopol, Calif., said the jury was largely sympathetic to Mr. Rosenthal's predicament. But, Mr. Sackett said, jurors were left with "no legal wiggle room" because of the decision to exclude any discussion of Proposition 215.
"It was one of the most difficult things we ever did as jurors," Mr. Sackett said of separating the state and federal aspects of the case. "We followed the letter of the law. We followed the court's instructions." Mr. Sackett said that he had voted for Proposition 215 and that he hoped Mr. Rosenthal would ultimately prevail in a higher court.
"I am for the use of medical marijuana, as a number of jurors were," he said. "But we just couldn't base our decision on that."
George L. Bevan Jr., the assistant United States attorney, asked that Mr. Rosenthal be taken into custody immediately, but Judge Breyer said he would make a decision about custody at a hearing on Tuesday. Mr. Rosenthal has been free since his arrest last February after posting $200,000 bond. The judge is scheduled to sentence Mr. Rosenthal in June.
Under the original indictment, Mr. Rosenthal had faced a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison if convicted, but the jury effectively cut that amount in half when it rejected the prosecution's contention that Mr. Rosenthal had conspired to grow more than 1,000 plants. The jury reduced the number to 100. Mr. Rosenthal's lawyers had argued that since the plants he had grown were starters, not fully grown plants, that the count involving 1,000 plants was excessive.
No it is not illegal for good reason. We have already heard all the comparisons with alcohol and tobacco and certainly you would not believe anyone on its medical benefits, since they are well established.
What should be disposative for any conservative is the tenth amendment. It is outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government to ban random substances, no matter what the excuse. Doubly so if that substance is produced within the state where it is possessed or used. This is what our FEDERAL system means and conservatives are all for it most of the time. But when you'all suspect that someone may be having a little unautherized fun, you forget your basic principles. Mr.Rosenthal was innocent of all charges since his state specifically legalized the medical use of MJ and the Feds have absolutely no authority to pass any such laws. The jurors were, in fact, duty bound to acquit.
The other interesting point was the Federal law, passed by our intelligent congresspersons, proclaiming that MJ has no medical uses. This was the judges excuse to block any testimony about medical necessity from the trial. Legislative bodies do not legislate scientific facts. This reminds me of a state legislature that once decreed, by law, that the value of pi was to be 3 rather than the more correct 22/7. Despite their law, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle did not change, nor did the medical usefullness of MJ go away because congress said so.
And I'm never more than a few of their bong-hits away from completely slipping from their memory.
Heck, half of them probably think they're signed on to DU.com
Wrong.
The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution mandates that federal law supersede state law where there is an outright conflict between such laws. See Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 (9 Wheat) U.S. 1, 210, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824); Free v. Bland, 369 U.S. 663, 666, 82 S. Ct. 1089, 8 L.Ed.2d 180 (1962); Industrial Truck Ass'n, Inc. v. Henry, 125 F.3d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1997) (state law is preempted "where it is impossible to comply with both state and federal requirements, or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purpose and objectives of Congress"). Recognizing this basic principle of constitutional law, defendants do not contend that Proposition 215 supersedes federal law, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Indeed, Proposition 215 on its face purports only to exempt certain patients and their primary caregivers from prosecution under certain California drug laws-it does not purport to exempt those patients and caregivers from the federal laws. One of the ballot arguments in favor of the initiative in fact states: "Proposition 215 allows patients to cultivate their own marijuana simply because federal law prevents the sale of marijuana and a state initiative cannot overrule those laws." Peron, 59 Cal.App.4th at 1393, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 20 (quoting Ballot Pamphlet, Proposed Amends. to Cal. Const. with arguments to voters, Gen.Elec. (Nov. 5, 1996 p. 60)).http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/drugreg/case01.htm
I don't use pot and you've already slipped from my memory .
There. Done.
Who are you and what were we talking about?
Couldn't help myself.
BWAAAHHHHAHAHAHHAHAA ,,, you're a hoot,, i just finished a house that had hardy plank on it,, 4 year old home ,,
VINYL IS FINAL - PAINT AIN'T
Neither is hardy plank
Your argument presupposes that the Federal government can have any laws on the subject in order to create a conflict. The Federal govt has no such authority, thus no conflict exists.
Now do you want to argue that they do have the authority? You will be arguing against the whole concept of Federalism and everything that conservatives and Libertarians stand for (and agree on).
As the Supremes, in US vs Lopez, said: Let us return to first principles.
It is therefore not surprising that every court that has considered the question, both before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, has concluded that section 841(a)(1) represents a valid exercise of the commerce power. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 1996 WL 621913, at *5 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 1996); United States v. Kim, 94 F.3d 1247, 1249-50 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bell, 90 F.3d 318, 321 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lerebours, 87 F.3d 582, 584-85 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 136 (1996); United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Scales, 464 F.2d 371, 375 (6th Cir. 1972); Lopez, 459 F.2d at 953.Proyect attempts to distinguish this body of authority by arguing that, while growing marijuana for distribution has a significant impact on interstate commerce, growing marijuana only for personal consumption does not. Despite the fact that he was convicted of growing more than 100 marijuana plants, making it very unlikely that he personally intended to consume all of his crop, Proyect contends that no one may be convicted under a statute that fails to distinguish between the cultivation of marijuana for distribution and the cultivation of marijuana for personal consumption. This contention is without merit.
Other forms of pain management can be used. There is no reason to legalize cannabis for supposedly the relief of pain associated with certain illness. Most people I know who use marijuana use it for the high and as a form of rebellion. Face it!
As I see it, the fathers of the Constitution could not have foreseen the day when we would have marijuana pushers hiding behind the Constitution!
Good point. We should find a way to make Ed Rosenthal pay for his own incarceration. It isn't right for us to pick up the tab when it was his choice to disobey the law.
Then you haven't read the Institute of Medicine report of March 1999, commissioned by the prior Drug Czar that proved the point without a doubt.
McCaffrey spent the 90's spouting the story, let's wait for the science before legalizing MJ for medicine. When the long awaited report did not say what he wanted, it fell into the memory hole.
MJ could mean blindness or sight to some. It could mean being able to take chemotherapy and survive or not being able to take it and dieing. This is no joke and to deny medicine to someone that is so important so that no one can get a little unauthorized high is the peak of evil.
So do you propose that we let people die or go blind so that we do not disrupt the economy of the prison system or the beer market?
And before you call me a druggie, I do not use MJ but there is cancer in my family and I want it available if I need it in the future. I also do not want my kids growing up in a police state and the insane WOD is speeding up that process quite a bit.
They would never have thought that the govt they designed could ever ban any substance. The farmers among them all grew hemp as a crop. We would be arresting them and stealing their farms under current practice.
First, not pro-weed but pro-freedom.
Secondly, Hemp is to MJ what dog is to Yorkshire terrier. When you breed hemp for more THC, you get MJ. The legal definition is 1% THC or less is Hemp. Over 1% THC is MJ. In other words, it is the same stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.